A. Banerji, J. - (1.) A learned single Judge was considering the scope of Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, (Central Act 34 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The contention on behalf of the appellant was that after the appeal had been admitted on the existence of a substantial question of law, the appellate court could hear the appeal on other questions as well, whether of fact or law. In support of this contention he cited two Division Bench decisions of this Court-Upper Ganges Electric Employees Union v. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Company Limited, AIR 1956 All. 491 and Smt. Shyama Devi v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, AIR 1964 All. 427. The learned single Judge was of the view that both these decisions needed re-consideration, as in his opinion, the scope of section 82 of the Act has not been correctly decided in the aforementioned two decisions of this Court. The learned single Judge chose to rely on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shalimar Rope Works Limited v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 75 CWN 1005 wherein it was held that the findings of fact arrived at by the Employees Insurance Court could not be considered by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 82 of the Act. The learned single Judge therefore referred the following question for decision by a Larger Bench :- " Whether after admission of an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the High Court can interfere with the findings of the Employees' Insurance Court on facts ?"
(2.) THE matter came up before a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice and Mr. Justice A. N. Varma. THEir Lordships were of the view that since the Court has to consider the correctness of the decisions of two Division Benches, the matter should engage the attention of a Larger Bench. Consequently the case has come up before us. The principal question to be considered in this case is regarding scope of Section 82 of the Act. Section 82 of the Act reads as follows :- " 82. Appeal.-(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court. (2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law. (3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (4) The provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply to appeals under this section. " It will be relevant to refer to a few provisions of Chapter VI of the Act in regard to Employees' Insurance Court. Section 74 of the Act deals with the constitution of Employees' Insurance Court. Section 75 deals with the matter to be decided by the said Court. Section 78 of the Act defines the power of the said Court. Sub-section (4) of Section 78 lays down ; " An order of the Employees' Insurance Court shall be enforceable as if it were a decree passed in a suit by a Civil Court."
(3.) SECTION 82 (1) of the Act specially provides that apart from what is provided by the section itself, 'no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court'. It is, therefore, obvious that except what is provided by this section, there is no other provision for any other appeal. SECTION 82 (2) of the Act reads : " An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Employees' Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law." A plain reading of sub-section (2) of SECTION 82 of the Act leads to the conclusion that appeals not involving substantial question of law are clearly not maintainable. What is maintainable therefore is an appeal which involves a substantial question of law. In other words, the appeal would be maintainable provided it raises a substantial question of law. In this context what the words 'appeal' used in sub-section (2) conveys is the making of a request for redress of a grievance and the expression '' appeal lies to the High Court from an order of the Employees' Insurance Court" would mean that any person aggrieved by an order of the Employees' Insurance Court can approach the High Court in an appeal for providing redress to him against that order. Further, the expression "An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Employees' Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law", would, therefore, mean that an aggrieved party can approach the High Court for redress of his grievance regarding the decision of the Employees' Insurance Court in respect of a substantial question of law. Where the aggrieved party claims that a question of fact has been wrongly decided his appeal in that regard would clearly not involve any substantial question of law and such an appeal would, therefore, not be maintainable. It is obvious therefore that it is not open to the aggrieved party to, in an appeal under section 82 of the Act, rake up any question other than that in respect of a substantial question of law, for if he is allowed to do so, it would amount entertaining, an appeal in respect of matter not involving a substantial question of law.;